I was just wondering about a general watchmaker question. I certainly hope @Archer and others chime in...
When picking up a stopped automatic, does hand-winding fully load/wind the main spring??
I always had the feeling that an automatic is never fully wound without a few hours of wrist movement.
Can someone confirm hat I'm wrong please...

 

I just confirmed on the time grapher....watch was dead, wound the crown for like 30-40 twists...it was -23s/d.
After wearing it around the house for an hour: -5s/d in the same position....perhaps I didn't fully wind it by hand....?

 

Position of watch greatly affects time keeping.

Yes winding an automatic will fully wind the main spring. As long as you can manually wind it. Some watches notably many Seiko cannot be hand wound.

 

I think the opposite is actually the case. Hand winding for 60-80 turns puts the spring at full wind, normal wear keeps it topped up but unless you are super active I would expect the power reserve to be somewhere between 50-100% in normal use. I can’t see how wrist movement can put more energy into the spring than fully hand winding. You can't overwind a healthy auto so why stop at 30-40 turns?

What you may be seeing is the rate speeding up as the amplitude drops as the spring winds down in use because the auto wind system isn’t keeping the spring at 100%. It may mean it needs servicing. Or you only half wound it by hand and the wrist time is topping it up to nearer 100%. Try the measurements again but first give it 60+ turns.

 

I think I have this problem with an early 80's Omega TV screen. Even on a winder its losing time at a rapid rate. Not sure whether its worth blowing £300 odd with a watch not worth much more.

 

This is not my area, but I have always been under the impression that there is more wear to an auto mechanism from hand-winding than if you wind the minimal amount to get the mainspring powered, and then let wrist motion do the rest. The rub is how many times is sufficient; I have always heard 15-20.

 

There is certainly more wear to the train in hand winding but there isn't much point in only part winding it IMO as it may run crap if the power reserve is like only 33% or so. My take is that if it has stopped, fully power it up and then wear it until it stops again through lack of use. Rinse repeat etc.

 

My take on this issue is that it's not a matter of opinion; most manufacturers specify a range of winds to get the mainspring sufficiently wound to enable the watch to run on the wrist. The question is, relative to what they specify, is this fully winding the mainspring? I think not. But maybe so. I have never read a watch manual that suggests one wind a dead automatic 60-80 times. But I'm pleased to learn something new.

 

Care to share that info? I can't recall ever seeing a number of winds recommended, certainly not by Omega. Most autos will run after 5 or 10 winds but they will run crap and if you don't power them up through movement will stop in short order.

 

From the Rolex website:

"Wearing the watch for the first time. A minimum of 25 turns is required for adequate partial winding. The watch will then be wound automatically as long as it is worn on the wrist." So I guess you could wind it more, but what's the point? And, care to share the reference for your 60-80 turns recommendation?

 

Conventional wisdom is you give an automatic a few winds to get em going after time in the box. My Rolexes modern and vintage run as soon as you pick them up. Never had to wind any of them.

 

Sure, my reference is that you can detect the mainspring start to slip after about 60 turn so at that point the watch is clearly fully wound. The point in not settling for 'adequate partial winding' is that autos run best with a full reserve so why not give it that. If you want a meaningful timing machine trace you should power it up fully. I note that is a Rolex recommendation which may well be about as reliable as the one about watch orientation over night to regulate the rate ie it has been debunked on here by knowledgeable types like Archer.

 

My automatics, both Rolex and Omega seem to run best after several hours on the wrist....and which point I'm pretty sure they are fully wound. I can confirm this with my Trilogy Railmaster. You can tell by listening to the 8806 movement...when its topped off, you can hear the "overwind protector" mechanism (I think that's what it is) after you finish winding...it's pretty cool.
But I just recently got a time grapher and can now confirm my suspicions...

 

That is just an incredible logistical leap. So if you were to make a statement that turned out to be incorrect, we should out of hand debunk every other thing that came out of your mouth?

 

You seem to want to get punchy about it, I don't. You suggested earlier that it isn't a matter of opinion, it clearly is: You have one, I have another.

Perhaps if we ask @Archer or another of the resident watchmakers like @ChrisN they would chime in. I am happy to have my view amended or corrected but would prefer some insight into the reasoning rather than a blanket quote from a website which gives no info on whether that is the best way or just a convenient way.

 

Yes, if you wind it enough times. Winding via the crown or via the automatic will get the watch to be fully wound.

 

First thing to understand is that the watch never fully unwinds in normal use. Even when the watch stops, the mainspring is partially wound, but isn't supplying enough torque to overcome the frictional loads in the wheel train and to move the escapement.

So this is why watches will often start right up when you pick them up, but if you want proper timekeeping, then giving them an additional amount of winding before wearing is a good idea. How much is needed is specific to each watch - there is no universal answer. It has to be enough that the amplitude rises high enough to eliminate the errors due to lack of isochronism.

The same goes for hand winding being possibly more damaging than auto winding - depends entirely on the design of the watch.

Cheers, Al

 

Thanks Al,

There is always much speculation around this issue with a perpatuation of myths.
Your response brings much needed clarity.